If we suppose a society where it exists and is feasible then yes it is based on emotions...
ref: your bold
erm look back a few pages:
'man' feeds kitten to his pet snake
- Thread starter cm1179
- Start date
- Status
If we suppose a society where it exists and is feasible then yes it is based on emotions...
ref: your bold
erm look back a few pages:
And emotions shouldn't be the sole basis for laws. It should be evidence based to begin with. Then applied across the board.
We eventually come back to sensiable debate, but this has already been done and there isn't an argument against it. Apart from the last bit, what on wart does capacity to kill humans have anything to do with it. We have the capacity to nuke the entire world, so we better keep the pet laws. Yeah there's a clear link there
Crickets are invertebrates, which is a pretty colossal difference to start off with.
Yes so if you were living in a society where eating humans (say from outside your society) was feasible and practical surely the main objection to eating them would be based upon feelings/emotions....
Emotions aren't the sole basis for laws.. but they're certainly a big factor. If you want to base all laws on evidence then we might as well live in an authoritarian society run by statisticians (or perhaps in the future some form of artificially intelligent machine...).
No it's based on the fact they are humans. With all the issues that comes with. What's so hard to understand, humans are not like every other animal. Humans are our own species.
What evidence is the basis for many of the "pet" laws. Why can't I eat cats, or eat song birds. What is the evidence for a total ban. Nothing at all.
Evidence for not eating someones pet, lots.
Evidence for farming and eating, nothing.
Humans are just another animal...
Its emotions/feelings that mean we don't generally want to see each other killed or treated poorly and certainly don't want to eat each other for food.
Oh look yet another person housing this stupid argument. Why do you do it. You know the answer. Your point isn't an argument. It's not remotely similar. It's just stupid. If you want to debate at least be sensiable.
It is a sensible argument. The only reasons we love humans so much is because of the emotional attachments we have to them, mainly because we are humans.
Going to answer the question now? It's not fair if you simply ignor the strong arguements on the other side!!
This. Some people on both sides need to calm down. Nobody should be killed for this.
What evidence do you require and why do you require evidence?
Why can't the fact that many people find the killing and eating of cats distasteful be sufficient for not allowing it within our society?
No they aren't, they are animals but also part of outer own species, that's a big difference.
Really, I thought it was that we lived in society and with out laws and restraints society couldn't exist.
So no you don't have a point.
I want evidence for why it's ok to eat bunny rabbit and not cats.
Or why it's ok for suffering in batchery hens, but not ok for far less suffering for one animal in a domestic setting.
And a hole host of other things with the same double standards.
Why do I require it, I think laws should be based on evidence first and foremost.
I hate double standards and that is all it is double standards with no basis in evidence or reason.
Why is it a big difference - other animals will eat their own species, some even eat their own young...
I don't know maybe becuase we have a Society. Maybe there's a host of issues other animals have, which thanks to laws we largely don't. Perhaps it's becuase we have thought and logic unlike other animals, or at least to a higher degree.
Cats are domestic pets, we attribute human emotions to them, they're considered part of many families....
We don't eat cats for the same reasons we don't eat other humans.... its purely based on emotions/feelings...
There are no logical restrictions to a society existing where humans eat other humans. The main reasons why it wouldn't likely happen are down to emotions/feelings...
No logical restrictions?
Really did you just say that
Yes there is emotion, but there's also a hell of a lot of evidence as well. Who do you kill, who owns the body, health issues. Emotional from loved ones and I allow that. Just as I allow emotional laws for not eating your pet cat. But laws that ban any cat from being eaten. That's not the same.
As I said laws should be based on evidence and then when needed public opinion draws the line.
except emotions/feelings aren't the only reason we don't eat people, health issues, cost, ethical concerns and lack of market are the main things.
This thread is all too typical of arguing on the internet really.
A handful of idiots continually posting stupid statements which are obviously engineered to provoke reactions amongst the sensible people in the thread. These idiots deliberately ignore all the rational and smart explanations on the given subject and continue to post their moronic views which clearly don't add up.
Everyone is just going round in circles.
Let the idiots continue to be idiots, you obviously wont re-educate them since they clearly don't want to try and understand, they just want to argue and make silly shocking statements for the fun of it.
A handful of idiots continually posting stupid statements which are obviously engineered to provoke reactions amongst the sensible people in the thread. These idiots deliberately ignore all the rational and smart explanations on the given subject and continue to post their moronic views which clearly don't add up.
Everyone is just going round in circles.
Let the idiots continue to be idiots, you obviously wont re-educate them since they clearly don't want to try and understand, they just want to argue and make silly shocking statements for the fun of it.
- Status